SciPhysicsForums.com

Hi Everyone,

I have published a new paper on the arXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355, reproducing the singlet correlation in a specific solution of Einstein's field equations.

Here is the abstract of the paper:

A local, deterministic, and realistic model within a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime with constant spatial curvature is presented which describes simultaneous measurements of the spins of two fermions emerging in a singlet state from the decay of a spinless boson. Exact agreement with the probabilistic predictions of quantum theory is achieved in the model without data rejection, remote contextuality, superdeterminism, or backward causation. An event-by-event numerical simulation of the model is presented, which confirms our analytical results with the accuracy of 4 in 10,000 parts.

Here are two numerical simulations that confirm the analytical results of the paper: (1) http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567, and (2) http://rpubs.com/jjc/13965.

I plan to discuss the results of the paper on my blog in the near future: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/.

Trying to read the new paper.

According to (15) Lambda is a set of pairs of unit length quaternions Po, Qo satisfying some further constraints.

According to (23) however, Lambda is a set of pairs of elements eo, so of R^3.

In order to determine Po and So from eo and so I need to further two specify elements n and v of R^3.

To say this a different way, if I tell you Po, Qo, eo and so then n and v are each uniquely determined.

So there is no way I can demand "for all n" in (22).

Later it is said that the *pair* of particles is represented by Qo.

However formulas (24) and (25) show that only eo is needed to determine measurement outcomes. This would seem to suggest that only Po is needed; Qo is redundant.

Later it is said that eo and so are independent and uniformly distributed over S^2, and etao = eta(z, so) is a uniform number in [0, pi].

Together with (24) and (25) we see that so and etao are superfluous. However this completely specified LHV model (ie: (24), (25) and the hidden variable eo specified to be uniformly distributed on S^2) does not generate the singlet correlations.

I am afraid that the initial clarity and elegance of the "Christian 1.0" model is completely lost. I refer hereby to the model of the "one page paper" arXiv:1103.1879; criticised by me in my 1203.1504; Christian's rebuttal being 1203.2529. This model figured also in the first chapter of Christian's book, first edition (I don't know if that chapter changed in the second edition).

If I were Stalin and Christian were Shostakovich, the next edition of Pravda would have an anonymous editorial entitled "muddle instead of music".

I have just received a message from my publisher that someone has ordered whopping 100 copies of my book after reading the above nonsense by Gill. Apparently they felt it was necessary to counteract Gill's shenanigans in their own way, by distributing free copies of my book to physicists capable of understanding my work.

Joy Christian wrote:I have just received a message from my publisher that someone has ordered whopping 100 copies of my book after reading the above nonsense by Gill. Apparently they felt it was necessary to counteract Gill's shenanigans in their own way, by distributing free copies of my book to physicists capable of understanding my work.

Splendid! Let's look forward to 100 book reviews, articles developing the theory further, and introductory tutorial treatments.

Did you submit your paper on local causality to a journal yet? What did the referees think?

gill1109 wrote:Did you submit your paper on local causality to a journal yet? What did the referees think?

I will tell you as soon as you part with the 10,000 Euros you owe me: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=57.

Perhaps an anonymous benefactor is going to distribute 100 copies of Christian's book at the Vaxjo conference, or one of the big "Bell Fest" conferences this summer.

I have an eBook version of the first edition. Can I claim an upgrade from the publisher?

gill1109 wrote:Perhaps an anonymous benefactor is going to distribute 100 copies of Christian's book at the Vaxjo conference, or one of the big "Bell Fest" conferences this summer.

I have an eBook version of the first edition. Can I claim an upgrade from the publisher?

Sure. But don't be cheap. Buy the new and beautiful second edition. Your great-great-great grandchildren will proudly claim that you actually owned a real copy.

Ahh what the heck, Joy. Just send Richard a signed copy. Maybe he will actually try to understand it if he has the book in hand. I know I like to read the book much better than the individual papers.

FrediFizzx wrote:Ahh what the heck, Joy. Just send Richard a signed copy. Maybe he will actually try to understand it if he has the book in hand. I know I like to read the book much better than the individual papers.

That reminds me: I still have to send you your copy back (I haven't forgotten).

Hi Joy,

No rush; I have the other copy to read. I sent an email to one of your gmail addresses but I guess you didn't get it. ???

FrediFizzx wrote:Hi Joy,

No rush; I have the other copy to read. I sent an email to one of your gmail addresses but I guess you didn't get it. ???

No, I didn't. That is odd.

Can anyone help?

gill1109 wrote:Trying to read the new paper.

According to (15) Lambda is a set of pairs of unit length quaternions Po, Qo satisfying some further constraints.

According to (23) however, Lambda is a set of pairs of elements eo, so, each belonging to R^3.

In order to determine Po and So from eo and so I need to further two specify elements n and v of R^3.

To say this a different way, if I tell you Po, Qo, eo and so then n and v are each uniquely determined.

So there is no way I can demand "for all n" in (22).

Later it is said that the *pair* of particles is represented by Qo.

However formulas (24) and (25) show that only eo is needed to determine measurement outcomes. This would seem to suggest that only Po is needed; Qo is redundant.

Later it is said that eo and so are independent and uniformly distributed over S^2, and etao = eta(z, so) is a uniform number in [0, pi].

Together with (24) and (25) we see that so and etao are superfluous. However this completely specified LHV model (ie: (24), (25) and the hidden variable eo specified to be uniformly distributed on S^2) does not generate the singlet correlations.

gill1109 wrote:Can anyone help?

No. As long as you are determined to remain stuck up in the flatland of R^3 no one can help you. You are on your own.

Liberate yourself from R^3 old man, it has been over seven years. Even an old dog can learn new tricks in seven years.

Although Richard Gill has been banned from this forum and can no longer post a reply here, it seems important to me that I should elaborate on why he and other Bell believers are having so much difficulty in understating my simple counterexample to the so-called theorem by Bell (cf. my post here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55#p2222).

As I have mentioned many times before, the fundamental difficulty they are having is in switching from the traditional R^3 perspective to the S^3 perspective on which my counterexample is based (see, for example, the detailed discussion on my blog).

Their difficulty can be understood in terms of Thomas Kuhn’s celebrated comments on scientific revolutions. Namely, that switching from understanding ideas within an old paradigm to ideas within a new paradigm requires something like a Gestalt Switch. A scientist cannot operate in the old paradigm after having been converted to a completely different way of conceptualizing the world through a new paradigm. In other words, while Richard Gill and his fellow Bell believers continue to see only the mature spinster in the picture below, I and a few others who understand my work are able to see the beautiful young lady, ready to take on the new world:

What young lady? That's an an old lady.













...

minkwe wrote:What young lady? That's an an old lady.

Age is in the eye of the beholder (or shall I say: Bell-holder)!

...

***
By the way, Amazon.com is currently offering the second edition my book for only 9.68, which is a bargain by any standards.

***

Here is a fun article by Sabine Hossenfelder:

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/e ... 10db0b8f8a.

Sabine is one of the most talented and productive young physicists I know. I may be biased here, because she happens to be a friend of mine. But she did win the first prize in the latest essay contest organized by FQXi. In any case, it is quite puzzling to me that she categorically makes the following statement in the above article:

"When I was a student, tests of Bell’s theorem were still thought experiments. Today, they are real experiments, and we know beyond a doubt that quantum entanglement exists."

Readers of this forum would not be surprised to know that I find this statement quite wrong on several counts. To begin with, as far as I know Bell's theorem itself has never been tested by any experiment. In my opinion the only experiment that can test Bell's theorem itself is my proposed macroscopic experiment. What is more, even if we shamelessly accept the usual Bell test experiments, they can hardly prove the "existence" of quantum entanglement. All they can confirm is that quantum mechanics predicts the observed strong correlations correctly. But the observed correlations are also explained by me in a perfectly local-realistic manner at least in this paper and in this simulation (not to mention the local-realistic models discusseced in my book mentioned above). So I am quite disturbed by Sabine's statement.

Sadly, what Sabine has stated is a standard folklore.

Speaking of Einstein, he is probably rolling over in his grave about all the brainwashing that has happened(a lot of which is probably self-inflicted) concerning this subject. For Sabine, hopefully it is just due to the fact that she has to "tow the line" since she is a professor.

I would qualify that a "proper" experiment has never been done to test Bell. Sure there are simple experiments that appear to give Bell's theorem validation physically.

FrediFizzx wrote:Speaking of Einstein, he is probably rolling over in his grave about all the brainwashing that has happened(a lot of which is probably self-inflicted) concerning this subject. For Sabine, hopefully it is just due to the fact that she has to "tow the line" since she is a professor.

I would qualify that a "proper" experiment has never been done to test Bell. Sure there are simple experiments that appear to give Bell's theorem validation physically.

Hi Fred,

You are right. Sabine has to "tow the party line", especially in a semi-popular article like the one she has written. Personally she prefers a kind of superdeterminism, as advocated by t' Hooft (which I consider to be quite mistaken because superdeterminism compromises the experimenter's freedom of choosing the settings at will).

You are also right that there do exist some experiments that appear to validate Bell's theorem itself, but none of these are definitive. A proper experiment is needed.